Having been in this game since Unlimited, I can't help but laugh at the deja vu I'm feeling reading this thread and its predecessor.
I remember hearing the same "Sky is falling" doom-and-gloom when the first template change in Exodus (adding collector numbers and rarity colors), with the Classic rules changes, with the new card template, etc. etc. etc.
And yet, we're all still here, and, more importantly, Magic is still here.
This has been mentioned a few times before but it bears repeating: The damage change is a step backward not a step forward: It is almost exactly damage worked pre-Classic (without the confusing damage-prevention window). Honestly, this is the way damage should have been from the very beginning rather than the Classic change of putting it on the stack.
And honestly, it's so insignificant a change that it shouldn't even warrant this much debate. So you can't kill a 1-toughness card with your STE and get a land. So what? A) How many card interactions does that actually affect and 2) do any of them really matter? We'll just find new card interactions, because that's what good players do.
The whole argument seems a bit childish, with much stamping of feet and holding of breath until faces turn blue. The only constant in anything, including our favorite games, is change. To survive you must learn to adapt. If you don't, you may just get left behind. And wishing to maintain the status quo won't stop the status quo from changing around you.
This is coming from someone who hasn't played the game in a couple years, but has a long memory, so take it for what you think it's worth. But, seriously, you want to talk about dumbing down the game, look at 7th edition.
I would like to second Djinn's call for more sealed results. I really want to hear how combat plays out from several people (cause a lot of yall are better players than me. :))
Played again last night, and EDH was identical to old rules. Even my Sharuum blink deck, but I also didn't draw Momentary Blink specifically.
Play certainly seemed to still favor skilled play. I didn't win a single game.
-Last thing: the elitist arguments I see ("I am no gonna lose my tricks and my cards for a noob" and such) are starting to make me sick. People who dare say such thing have forgotten what a game is about, have forgotten that without these "noobs" the game would never had existed, and that they were "noobs" one day. Its the worst and the most childish argument you could display. Congratulations to all who did.
Well said. Odds are the personalities that resent "stupid noobs" are personalities that hinder MTG's growth. This is a game, not a rite of passage.
Bring on new players. I want to play this game 24/7.
Incredible amounts of blind fanboyism here on this forum. Or are people just blind noobs not understanding the rules?
The changes to combat phase are MASSIVE, the reductions of possibilities for skillful outplaying an opponent are HUGE. So many highly useful options and strategic possibilities are completely GONE.
This is nothing like the 6ED changes. I was there 9 years ago, I remember the outrage, but then it was greatly . 6th Edition and The Stack was a great step forward, into making the game mechanics easy, simple and LOGICAL.
The new M10 rules aren't logical AT ALL!
Just look at how damage prevention is to be played - right now it's simple and obvious - you play your prevention effects IN RESPONSE to a damage spell or IN RESPONSE to declared damage on the stack. But after the horrible joke that is M10 goes live it will be completely inconsistent and illogical - in combat you will need to play prevention BEFORE damage is even assigned! Thats plain ********! Why make combat work 180 degrees different than the rest of the game? Pure nonsense.
And LIMITING the possibilities for creative plays is UNFORGIVABLE. Nothing like that happened in the past. 6ED changes were even more drastic, but they DIDN'T CUT DOWN the possibilities and options!
Honestly I doubt these NEGATIVE changes will even help to bring new players in. Many other changes which are coming WILL help, but those were completely unnecessary.
I've been teaching plenty of new players to play the game well, and understanding of the combat damage step was NEVER hard for them to understand!
If they understood the basic concept of how The Stack works, like from the basic classic example of playing a Giant Growth in response to a Shock, it was enough when I told them: "Declared combat damage now goes on the stack as 1 single package and can be responded to by both players."
and there was nothing more to be explained!
And the same with a case of a multi-block: "Attacker can freely distribute his damage among the blockers"
Hard?
Even mentally tarded pokemon kids understood this instantly.
If I can describe a rule in just 1 sentence and it's instantly understood = it's not complicated!
And now, try to describe all the new stuff about declaring blockers in an order and the whole process of trample-like dealing damage through them to a new player in 1 sentence!
Good luck.
Yes, not only they made it unnecessarily MORE COMPLICATED, they also REDUCED the possibilities of plays resulting in a dumbed down game. Dumbed down game that's more complicated and illogical at the same time. Lolwut?
BAD+BAD=TERRIBAD
It's not just controversial. It's plain horrible. The new combat changes are easily The Single WORST change that has happened to the game in it's entire history.
Unmatched by anything else.
Because almost everything else was pretty much good, there were very few things which could be called bad at all... but this one is BAD on a massive scale.
So much trolling.
Also, many insults to people's intelligence and such.
Flame infraction.
No seriously, no trolling on this thread. We want LEGITIMATE discussion, not discussion saying 'you can't do so many things anymore' without saying why.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
I think I wouldn't hate the new combat nearly as much if deathtouch damage had to follow the blocking order. Their own example of Moonglove Winnower blocked by three creatures highlights how wrong deathtouch is. Alpha and 6ED rules both gave time to respond to damage with damage prevention and regeneration abilities. But M10's deathtouch really neuters damage prevention and regeneration for multiblocks.
For example, modifying their deathtouch example a little, Moonglove Winnower is blocked by three Drudge Skeletons. The Elf can deal 1 damage to two of the Skeletons. If the defending player regenerates only the Skeleton first in order, the Elf skips over it and deals 1 damage to the second and third. If the defending player regenerates the first two Skeletons, the Elf deals 1 damage to one of them and skips over to deal 1 damage to the third. The Elf can only deal 2 damage, but the defending player has to regenerate all three if he wants two of them to regenerate.
The ordering of blockers by the attacking player is supposed to show his priority for dealing damage. The point of ordering blockers is to still give the defending player some chance to respond to the damage before it is dealt. Deathtouch should only modify how much damage a creature has to deal to a blocker (at least 1) before moving on to the next creature in order. It should not completely disregard the chosen order.
If deathtouch followed blocking order, I wouldn't mind the loss of damage assignment nearly as much. The loss of "stack damage, sacrifice/bounce, still deal damage" is not that big of a problem. The problem is the way that deathtouch disregards the new blocking order that is supposed to replace damage assignment on the stack.
... of course there is still the problems of weakening already weak damage prevention, neutering older cards like Stone-Tongue Basilisk, and eliminating post combat Pyroclasms/Inflames for extra damage.
The ordering of blockers by the attacking player is supposed to show his priority for dealing damage. The point of ordering blockers is to still give the defending player some chance to respond to the damage before it is dealt. Deathtouch should only modify how much damage a creature has to deal to a blocker (at least 1) before moving on to the next creature in order. It should not completely disregard the chosen order.
I have not had any games where a deathtouch creature was gang-blocked yet. That said, I think this is probably a very good point.
I am trying to think why they would not have taken that approach. My guess is that the method they chose was easier to fit into a keyword reminder text. Perhaps someone can come up with a concise reminder text to fit silvercut's concept.
i keep seeing this mentioned, but i don't recall seeing anything in the new rules that stop you from doing this, can someone point it out somewhere?
Edit: The post above describes the Pyroclasm after combat scenario. I do think this is a legitimate loss in combat, despite it being a somewhat uncommon issue outside of limited. The question whether it is a good trade-off will of course vary from player to player, probably contingent on that player's favored formats and decks therein. Moreover, new combat is new enough, there may be other undiscovered implications to fill that particular void.
one more edit: I distinctly remember some lost strategies when 6th Edition came into the game. I don't recall at this time what they were... Mirror Universe was a minor one, and not comparable to the Pyroclasm Post-Combat. Perhaps others can recall some others.
@silvercut: Agreed, Deathtouch seems very much tacked on at the last minute, which is why a lot seem to think this wasn't as playtested as well as WotC says it was.
Deathtouch got buffed for sure, I like the changes made with it and lifelink but haven't yet had a chance to playtest it. A lot of players in my Block group cried knowing that multiple Battlegraces aren't as ridiculous anymore (well, Maelstrom Pulse kinda cinched that anyway).
What they're talking about is a situation like this:
You attack with a 6/6, the defender blocks with three 4/4's.
You deal two damage to each of them and let combat resolve, your guy dies, the 4/4's have two damage each.
Second main you play pyroclasm and all his creatures die because it brings their damage count up to 4.
Why would anyone ever block that way?
I accept that these situations sometimes occur, but it is rare. You can't force the opponent to double block the way you want to anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
I question the new combat rules. The primary reasons being the removal of a chance for new players to learn about and use the stack, and the creation of problems that didn't exist before.
The first reason stated for the change in the combat rules is that the use of the stack is complicated for new players. But the stack is part of the game, and the new player needs to learn it. Creature combat being one of the first things I teach folks new to Magic, that's normally the first chance to teach them about the stack. "When we get to this phase, each attacker assigns its damage among its blockers, and then the blockers assign their damage to the creature they're blocking. That damage goes on the stack and each player has a chance to play spells or abilities in response to it. You could use a card to protect your creature from damage here, or if you have a way to sacrifice a creature that's going to die when the damage hits them you can use it now to your advantage." How hard is that? They get to delve into the most complicated portion of the game, the stack, in the portion of the game that's easiest to understand, dudes hitting other dudes in combat.
This change creates two separate game action resolution mechanisms. The stack for spells and something entirely different for creature damage interactions. The stack was, until now, the unifying mechanism for resolving actions within the game. Yes it was sometimes difficult, but once the basics were learned you could pretty much work out any game state by using the stack. This change to combat means you now have two "books" of rules to use. Certainly their spheres are nicely delineated, but it creates a mental line within the minds of new players. "Ok, I learned combat and that was complicated. Now I have to learn this stack thing too?"
By using a single unifying system to resolve most game mechanics, you avoid the appearance of over codification. The unifying rule applies to all situations. Learn it and you understand the game. Now the system appears to be two systems. The stack and the combat system. The rules necessary to work the new combat system seems formidable to say the least.
As an example of the new problems created by the combat system change, in their breakdown of the rules Wizards states that there were two problems with Deathtouch: It triggered in a weird manner sometimes. - A legitimate complaint that could be fixed by making it non-stackable. And that it doesn't work with the new combat rules... WHAT? That wasn't a problem until it was made a problem! It worked just fine before aside from the stacking issues. The retooling of combat created an additional problem that had to be solved.
Friday night, my store had 4 booster drafts and our beginner's special - hands-on game training, free booster draft, free tournament pack and three boosters, and tournament mat for the price of the first booster draft. Overall, 13 returning players and 4 new players showed up for the night (I usually have another 2 booster drafts, but we only had 3 additional players show up).
Each draft group was given the option of running the new M10 ruleset as opposed to the previous ruleset. Three of the groups decided to give them a shot - the resident judge and I announced the new rules, along with displaying them over the projector. Before passing out product (and after giving a basic rundown with the new players), I covered changes in combat using examples in this thread and over the Wizard's forums to try to keep issues to a minimum (I thought at the time the new blocking order would cause problems). To say the least, alot of players (mostly casual veterans) were disappointed by the changes, especially combat blocking and damage.
The drafts were as follows: 10th Ed., Alara Block, 10th Ed., Time Spiral Block. The beginners were split fairly evenly, 2 in the 10th Ed. and Alara Block drafts, 2 in the 10th Ed. and Time Spiral drafts. The latter 2 last night ended up learning both the new and older rule sets, so I got beginner impressions of the old versus new. Might need to continue this tonight to what happens.
Anyways to keep this short, here are the basic reactions and comments I recorded during the night:
It took older players a while to adapt to the new rules, including those who learned pre-6th Edition rules.
Not much really changes when dealing with combat spells and abilities, but a majority of my customers did not like that you need to act before combat damage occurs.
Deathtouch was a welcomed change. It is gushing with flavour now and works according to that flavour.
Lifelink is not a welcomed change. Here is one comment that was made:
"If I have a creature with two Loxodon Warhammer's equiped, why don't I gain double the life? If I gave all of my creatures lifelink, why can't those that already ready have it gain double?"
This comment was made by one of the beginners, not a veteran. The other beginners also made conceptual mistakes involving lifelink - not a welcomed change for beginners in my opinion.
Mana burn. Most of the veterans commented that it is a loss to the game, but it only effects the game in unique and interesting situations (which is why more than 40 cards are effected by it's removal - directly, got 40; indirectly, don't know). Here is a comment made by the beginners in the first set of drafts:
"So there is no punishment for in-game misplays for mana? This mana-flood and mana-screw if we don't plan, but nothing rewarding for tapping carefully?"
Combat - Blocking. This is something I noticed very quickly. The beginners who played YuGiOh got used to this very, VERY fast and found advantages much faster than veterans adapting. But once everyone adapted, veterans commented that it adds defensive consideration on the attacker. Order changes what might survive, but the options available are nearly the same, other than non-lethal to the first few blockies.
"If creatures become the driving force behind MTG and creatures with more useful combat/game altering abilities are printed, this change will drastically change the game. But this will change aggro and control styles drastically - we might see a drastic power creep in the next several sets."
Combat - Unstacked Damage. This change angered alot of players in the store, including the new players. The new players had a hard time understanding it, especially after learning about instants and sorceries. The biggest problem they had was involving the flavour and logic of it:
"So I can't directly aid my creatures when they attack? I have to do it when I declare them attacking or blocking? But not during actual combat? My creature can't run into combat, hit for damage, and than sacrifice themselves to do more? I'll have to protect my creature before running into battle and not after?"
There were other comments made by veterans, but they have been pretty much summed up in the thread so far (so I'll leave them out).
Finally about the 2 beginners that tasted both rulesets.
They liked mana burn, especially since it showed them to carefully watch what they were tapping by direct punishment.
"Combat was enjoyable in the second draft - suddenly being able to throw spells and tell creatures to use abilities during combat, right before the hit occurs. Then after the hit, casting a creature to save another, showing team effort. It was priceless to think about. The first draft was nothing like this. Just sit back and watch it occur - there was no excitement in the game quite like that."
"Attacking into a group of blockers should not be one on one fights to the death. Brawls of fighting were more intense, more like a real fight for a game. Both were simple, but the second draft was easier."
I don't know, this pretty much sums up from Friday. I'll do the same tonight as well and post those results (same special tonight as well). I understand Wizards said they were doing this to help beginners and the casual crowd, but Friday showed me that some of it worked (Deathtouch), whereas the older rules were more fun for the beginners. But then again this is only 2 beginner's opinion on the matter.
I have not had any games where a deathtouch creature was gang-blocked yet. That said, I think this is probably a very good point.
I mean, you've probably not seen a Deathtouch creature gangblocked very often because it's guaranteed card disadvantage under the old rules or the new almost all the time. I'm not really worried about weird scenarios where someone is playing 3 creatures all with regeneration and they happen to need to gang up on a creature with Deathtouch. The highest toughness of any creature with Deathtouch at the moment is 3. After that, you're looking at Deathtouch granting Auras and Equipment, or a Cairn Wanderer with a Deathtouch creature in the graveyard. Frankly, if someone has gone through that much effort to get Deathtouch on something big, I don't think it's really that big a deal if that creature is awesome at killing stuff in combat.
Truthfully, the vast vast vast majority of the time you're brawling with Deathtouch creatures it'll still be a 1 for 1 trade because they're typically not big. The triple Drudge Skeletons example only appears worrisome because the chosen Deathtoucher has 3 toughness and all of the chosen defenders are 1/1s. And even then, you're trading a Drudge Skeletons for a Winnower, which is usually going to be a good trade for you. In this scenario also thanks to the new rules, the Drudge Skeletons have to pay half as much to regenerate in order to survive combat. This also seems good, to me.
Deathtouch was an okay ability. Now it's marginally better and instead of being straightforward it is a bit tricky. I think that having a keyworded ability be slightly trickier is probably a good thing. And anyway, how often are spells / abilities used that would actually prevent a creature from dying to Deathtouch?
1. It makes the game more intuitive/easier for new players to learn.
I admit, there were tons of confusing situations in the old rules. But you know what? There are just as many confusing situations in the new rules too! The mere fact that there are tons of rules questions proves this (and in a specific case, I will point to the fact that the defending player assigns blockers, but does not choose blocking order, which is unintuitive). The stack is absolutely integral to the game, and if you are dumbing things down since newer players can't handle the stack, then you are just promoting ignorance. Those players STILL don't know how to play.
Conclusion: The game is not more intuitive or easier to learn.
FACT: I have never had to explain stacking combat damage to a new player that I taught a second time. EVER. I use the phrasing "and then the creature fight, so they assign damage however they want to the creatures blocking/blocked by them, and then the damage goes on the stack, so you get one last chance to save them before they go to the graveyard."
The reason so many new players are surprised by this "stack and sac" stuff is because some people aren't properly teaching them. Of course they are surprised and betrayed! Their knowledgable teacher thought they were too stupid to understand this simple concept and just completely left it out! How insulting!
2. It increases the place of skill in the game/opens up more tactical decisions
Do you know what skill is? It is knowledge of the game, combined with the ability to apply that knowledge. Blocking and then saccing with damage on the stack is a skillful move. The only reason its so obvious now is because we've been doing it for years. By changing the rules, you are not making the game more of a skill tester. You are merely changing the best action.
Yes, there are new choices, but the fact remains that there is only one best option to choose*.
A skilled player will still only have one "obvious" choice. The only reason it seems like you have more choices is because WotC destroyed all your training, so you are not yet skilled enough to make the proper choice.
* (using known game state information only, and not counting the effects of luck on the game, which will always apply)
Conclusion: The game is not more of a skill tester, nor does the game open up more tactical decisions.
3. It nerfs some abilities.
If this is REALLY the reason, I wish WotC would just come out and say it. Honestly, I wasn't even aware that they were causing so much trouble. Isn't every tournament riddled with, you know, non-saccing creatures? Lets take a look Bloodbraid Elf, Mistbind Clique
Hmmm... it seems the tournaments are just completely saturated with efficient beaters and creatures badass comes into play abilities (which are often also efficient beaters).
I didn't know Putrid Leech was such a big problem, considering its not even played it every BG deck.
Even going back to older formats, the cards nerfed aren't format wreckers! You can only make a case with Archbound Ravager, but he was only a problem since every other card in Affinity is both an artifact and free, not because his ability sacs other creatures on the stack for more damage!
Conclusion: The cards nerfed did not need to be nerfed.
4. Change for the sake of change.
This is possible the worst reason of all! This is a hobby, and all the current players learned with the current rules, so obviously there was something there that they liked. Unless you can think of a solid reasoning for changing the rules, you'll only risk changing something people liked, thus injuring the game.
Since there are no apparent positive consequences and there are apparent negative consequences*, making random changes to the game for the sake of the game has a much greater chance of negatively impacting the game.
*(as in the obsoletence of 10 years of design. Tons of old cards will become useless, falling below the power level of other uneffected cards, and thus rendering dech archtypes unplayable)
Conclusion: These random changes will, in all likeliness, negatively impact the game.
Final Conclusion: These changes to the combat system should not have occurred.
Edit- Got another reason? Please list it an address me. I'd love to counter it.
To urzassedatives
Dude, what is your problem?! I've already given a million and one examples of when that happens. Rarity of one specific case is not an argument when there are THOUSANDS of other similar cases. The changes add up.
They would block that way if it was a 6/9.
What if it was a 2/2 blocked by two 1/3's? Surely that's much more common.
Just pick an attacker X/X, and blockers Y1/Z1, Y2/Z2... YN/ZN, with a sweeper of damage M.
Such that Sum N:1 -> N (YN) = X and Sum N:1 -> N (ZN) > X-N and There exists two such Z, caled ZJ and ZK, such that X + 2M > ZJ + ZK.
Then a sweeper post combat against properly distributed damage will always take out more creature than in the old system. THERE! Thats an infinite number of cases. Maybe each case is rare, but in total, they are not rare, specifically in limited.
Another Edit-
I remembered another argument
5. Saccing after stacking damage is unflavorful.
But people have already voiced their thoughts on "lethal damage healing/dying breath actions" and so have I. In addition, the new blocker lineup doens't make any flavorful sense either. If I order my knight to fight these 3 guys, and kill Guy 1 first, but Guy 1 gets hit by a Giant Growth, such that the knight can no longer kill it, why would he just ignore the other two guys he is clearly fighting, even though he could kill them?
Conclusion: The new system is not more flavorful.
Friday night, my store had 4 booster drafts and our beginner's special - hands-on game training, free booster draft, free tournament pack and three boosters, and tournament mat for the price of the first booster draft. Overall, 13 returning players and 4 new players showed up for the night (I usually have another 2 booster drafts, but we only had 3 additional players show up).
Each draft group was given the option of running the new M10 ruleset as opposed to the previous ruleset. Three of the groups decided to give them a shot - the resident judge and I announced the new rules, along with displaying them over the projector. Before passing out product (and after giving a basic rundown with the new players), I covered changes in combat using examples in this thread and over the Wizard's forums to try to keep issues to a minimum (I thought at the time the new blocking order would cause problems). To say the least, alot of players (mostly casual veterans) were disappointed by the changes, especially combat blocking and damage.
The drafts were as follows: 10th Ed., Alara Block, 10th Ed., Time Spiral Block. The beginners were split fairly evenly, 2 in the 10th Ed. and Alara Block drafts, 2 in the 10th Ed. and Time Spiral drafts. The latter 2 last night ended up learning both the new and older rule sets, so I got beginner impressions of the old versus new. Might need to continue this tonight to what happens.
Anyways to keep this short, here are the basic reactions and comments I recorded during the night:
It took older players a while to adapt to the new rules, including those who learned pre-6th Edition rules.
Not much really changes when dealing with combat spells and abilities, but a majority of my customers did not like that you need to act before combat damage occurs.
Deathtouch was a welcomed change. It is gushing with flavour now and works according to that flavour.
Lifelink is not a welcomed change. Here is one comment that was made:
"If I have a creature with two Loxodon Warhammer's equiped, why don't I gain double the life? If I gave all of my creatures lifelink, why can't those that already ready have it gain double?"
This comment was made by one of the beginners, not a veteran. The other beginners also made conceptual mistakes involving lifelink - not a welcomed change for beginners in my opinion.
Mana burn. Most of the veterans commented that it is a loss to the game, but it only effects the game in unique and interesting situations (which is why more than 40 cards are effected by it's removal - directly, got 40; indirectly, don't know). Here is a comment made by the beginners in the first set of drafts:
"So there is no punishment for in-game misplays for mana? This mana-flood and mana-screw if we don't plan, but nothing rewarding for tapping carefully?"
Combat - Blocking. This is something I noticed very quickly. The beginners who played YuGiOh got used to this very, VERY fast and found advantages much faster than veterans adapting. But once everyone adapted, veterans commented that it adds defensive consideration on the attacker. Order changes what might survive, but the options available are nearly the same, other than non-lethal to the first few blockies.
"If creatures become the driving force behind MTG and creatures with more useful combat/game altering abilities are printed, this change will drastically change the game. But this will change aggro and control styles drastically - we might see a drastic power creep in the next several sets."
Combat - Unstacked Damage. This change angered alot of players in the store, including the new players. The new players had a hard time understanding it, especially after learning about instants and sorceries. The biggest problem they had was involving the flavour and logic of it:
"So I can't directly aid my creatures when they attack? I have to do it when I declare them attacking or blocking? But not during actual combat? My creature can't run into combat, hit for damage, and than sacrifice themselves to do more? I'll have to protect my creature before running into battle and not after?"
There were other comments made by veterans, but they have been pretty much summed up in the thread so far (so I'll leave them out).
Finally about the 2 beginners that tasted both rulesets.
They liked mana burn, especially since it showed them to carefully watch what they were tapping by direct punishment.
"Combat was enjoyable in the second draft - suddenly being able to throw spells and tell creatures to use abilities during combat, right before the hit occurs. Then after the hit, casting a creature to save another, showing team effort. It was priceless to think about. The first draft was nothing like this. Just sit back and watch it occur - there was no excitement in the game quite like that."
"Attacking into a group of blockers should not be one on one fights to the death. Brawls of fighting were more intense, more like a real fight for a game. Both were simple, but the second draft was easier."
I don't know, this pretty much sums up from Friday. I'll do the same tonight as well and post those results (same special tonight as well). I understand Wizards said they were doing this to help beginners and the casual crowd, but Friday showed me that some of it worked (Deathtouch), whereas the older rules were more fun for the beginners. But then again this is only 2 beginner's opinion on the matter.
In a draft, I can't imagine many situations in a draft where the rules of playing stuff before damage is assigned and playing after it's assigned matters.
Regeneration is about the only time. An unsummon effect is about all I can think of otherwise, and a sacrifice outlet.
Can you explain some of the cards involved? (if you remember?) so we can clearly see exactly what's different.
99% of the games I've played have never abused "combat damage on the stack". Scarland Thrinax and Mogg Fanatic are the two recent ones I know if that I might abuse.
But all of those have flavor reasons for why it doesn't make sense. How come my creature still hits yours after it gets eaten by a thrinax??
To urzassedatives
Dude, what is your problem?! I've already given a million and one examples of when that happens. Rarity of one specific case is not an argument when there are THOUSANDS of other similar cases. The changes add up.
They would block that way if it was a 6/9.
What if it was a 2/2 blocked by two 1/3's? Surely that's much more common.
Just pick an attacker X/X, and blockers Y1/Z1, Y2/Z2... YN/ZN, with a sweeper of damage M.
Such that Sum N:1 -> N (YN) = X and Sum N:1 -> N (ZN) > X-N and There exists two such Z, caled ZJ and ZK, such that X + 2M > ZJ + ZK.
Then a sweeper post combat against properly distributed damage will always take out more creature than in the old system. THERE! Thats an infinite number of cases. Maybe each case is rare, but in total, they are not rare, specifically in limited.
So have you tested with the new rules? Doesn't seem like it, since you continue to give hypotheticals, with creatures with hypothetical p/ts and weird gamestates.
Also, like I said, as time goes on, more and more are speaking out in favor of them, as Pat Chapin did the other day.
Sorcery speed sweepers are likely on the out.
Ever think about that? Last I checked, we have some really good instant speed ones in standard. This fixes your problem perfectly. After blockers and block order is figured out, you cast the sweeper, then assign damage.
Fin.
Like I said, these rules will be supplemented by the types of cards being printed from here on out.
You can continually wear the negative pants, that is fine, but understand that this change is not 100% terrible, and won't be 100% detriment to everything ever.
There are cases where some cards work differently, yes, but if WoTC prints cards that aren't less than optimal in the new system (ala pyroclasm) they can even things out.
Also, in respect to damage prevention, maybe that will be retooled as well?
Neo-healing salve W
Instant
You may prevent up to 3 damage dealt to a creature you control this turn. (Templating may be off)
Since prevention shields are now going to be almost exclusively that, why not make actual ones?
These changes are NOT about 'working better in X situation anyway'. New types of cards and effects will be made and the rules will prove their mettle themselves, just as with 6th edition rules, which WERE NOT popular at all when they were first announced.
If the pros can find new and interesting strategy in the new system, maybe people against this change aren't looking at it with open eyes. There are opportunities for new strategies, as old doors are closed. More choices and tension in combat, no more 'cake and eat it too' decisions by stacking damage.
After the release of M10, the great majority of players will be done complaining about the new rules, and will have settled in just fine. If there was such a massive outcry, the (pointless) petition wouldn't be at such a dismally low number anyway.
2. It increases the place of skill in the game/opens up more tactical decisions
Do you know what skill is? It is knowledge of the game, combined with the ability to apply that knowledge. Blocking and then saccing with damage on the stack is a skillful move. The only reason its so obvious now is because we've been doing it for years. By changing the rules, you are not making the game more of a skill tester. You are merely changing the best action.
Yes, there are new choices, but the fact remains that there is only one best option to choose*.
A skilled player will still only have one "obvious" choice. The only reason it seems like you have more choices is because WotC destroyed all your training, so you are not yet skilled enough to make the proper choice.
* (using known game state information only, and not counting the effects of luck on the game, which will always apply)
Conclusion: The game is not more of a skill tester, nor does the game open up more tactical decisions.
Chapin heavily disagrees with you.
And I think he knows a little more about skill and magic theory. He has a book coming out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
I admit, there were tons of confusing situations in the old rules. But you know what? There are just as many confusing situations in the new rules too!
"Just as many"? That's really the debatable point.
There is a large conceptual hurdle to get over about how "damage on the stack" works. A lot of players run into this and hate it, especially if they originally learn the game informally, then get pwned by someone who uses one of these tricks on them without explaining it effectively.
The new rules certainly can produce confusing situations as well, but they seem to be much more in terms of explaining a bunch of different relatively rare corner cases rather than a single big hurdle you have to crawl over early on in the learning process. That's quite arguably an improvement.
(Let's not go down the potentially insulting path of insisting that people who have trouble with any given rule are "idiots" or whatever, please. Every player who learns Magic is different and gets stuck at different places in the rules; I can assure you that damage-stacking is one place that many, though certainly nothing like all, new players become confused.)
Blocking and then saccing with damage on the stack is a skillful move.
In a vacuum, any circumstance in which you make the "correct" play is a skillful move, yes, but that's not what people are talking about.
When people say they want Magic to be a game of skill, they mean that they want it to be a game in which small differences in skill make a relatively large difference in who wins; where, more often, the better player beats the worse.
Block-->sac is a skillful move, but it's a single, easily acquired skill; any moderately decent player will know it, and always make the right call. In this situation, under the old rules, any player with a 1700 rating will play exactly as well as Gabriel Nassif.
In a situation in which the combat decisions are more nuanced and challenging, this creates more opportunities for greater skill to prevail. Under the current system, the correct play in many combat situations is less obvious, and more dependent on board position, relative weighting of different resources, and knowledge of one's own deck. This provides more opportunities for the very skilled -- like the people who win Pro Tours -- to outplay the moderately skilled, which makes Magic a more skill-intensive game.
3. It nerfs some abilities.
If this is REALLY the reason, I wish WotC would just come out and say it.
I don't think this is really the reason, simply because (as you point out) the "nerfed" effects really aren't format-ruining.
They would block that way if it was a 6/9.
What if it was a 2/2 blocked by two 1/3's? Surely that's much more common.
Why is someone blocking a 2/2 with two 1/3s? If you have an otherwise clear board, the attacker is bluffing that he has a trick, and you probably don't risk calling him on it, because if he does you're probably looking at a 2-for-1 (if you don't have a trick of your own), with a 2-for-2 or 1-for-1 probably the best trade you can guarantee on your end. In a vacuum, you take the 2 in this circumstance.
Where it gets more interesting is when you don't have a vacuum -- say, the attacker is making an alpha strike with four different creatures and you're arranging a complex blocking situation to try to eke out better card advantage than your opponent. But these circumstances also don't really lose complexity from the new rules. Take this isolated part of the example: under the old rules, if the attacker's packing a Pyroclasm, they're almost guaranteed to wipe out any blocking creature one way or another, no matter how the opponent chooses to allocate his blockers. In the new rules, the blocker can actually consider protection against Pyroclasm-type effects as one benefit of gang-blocking, a choice that didn't exist before.
A lot of this stuff is really hypothetical now because it hasn't been played out on the Pro level. Once we see a major event with these rules in place, I guarantee we'll be able to point to a few games where interesting strategic calls were made that were only made possible by these new rules.
1. It makes the game more intuitive/easier for new players to learn.
I admit, there were tons of confusing situations in the old rules. But you know what? There are just as many confusing situations in the new rules too! The mere fact that there are tons of rules questions proves this (and in a specific case, I will point to the fact that the defending player assigns blockers, but does not choose blocking order, which is unintuitive). The stack is absolutely integral to the game, and if you are dumbing things down since newer players can't handle the stack, then you are just promoting ignorance. Those players STILL don't know how to play.
Conclusion: The game is not more intuitive or easier to learn.
FACT: I have never had to explain stacking combat damage to a new player that I taught a second time. EVER. I use the phrasing "and then the creature fight, so they assign damage however they want to the creatures blocking/blocked by them, and then the damage goes on the stack, so you get one last chance to save them before they go to the graveyard."
The reason so many new players are surprised by this "stack and sac" stuff is because some people aren't properly teaching them. Of course they are surprised and betrayed! Their knowledgable teacher thought they were too stupid to understand this simple concept and just completely left it out! How insulting!
2. It increases the place of skill in the game/opens up more tactical decisions
Do you know what skill is? It is knowledge of the game, combined with the ability to apply that knowledge. Blocking and then saccing with damage on the stack is a skillful move. The only reason its so obvious now is because we've been doing it for years. By changing the rules, you are not making the game more of a skill tester. You are merely changing the best action.
Yes, there are new choices, but the fact remains that there is only one best option to choose*.
A skilled player will still only have one "obvious" choice. The only reason it seems like you have more choices is because WotC destroyed all your training, so you are not yet skilled enough to make the proper choice.
* (using known game state information only, and not counting the effects of luck on the game, which will always apply)
Conclusion: The game is not more of a skill tester, nor does the game open up more tactical decisions.
3. It nerfs some abilities.
If this is REALLY the reason, I wish WotC would just come out and say it. Honestly, I wasn't even aware that they were causing so much trouble. Isn't every tournament riddled with, you know, non-saccing creatures? Lets take a look Bloodbraid Elf, Mistbind Clique
Hmmm... it seems the tournaments are just completely saturated with efficient beaters and creatures badass comes into play abilities (which are often also efficient beaters).
I didn't know Putrid Leech was such a big problem, considering its not even played it every BG deck.
Even going back to older formats, the cards nerfed aren't format wreckers! You can only make a case with Archbound Ravager, but he was only a problem since every other card in Affinity is both an artifact and free, not because his ability sacs other creatures on the stack for more damage!
Conclusion: The cards nerfed did not need to be nerfed.
4. Change for the sake of change.
This is possible the worst reason of all! This is a hobby, and all the current players learned with the current rules, so obviously there was something there that they liked. Unless you can think of a solid reasoning for changing the rules, you'll only risk changing something people liked, thus injuring the game.
Since there are no apparent positive consequences and there are apparent negative consequences*, making random changes to the game for the sake of the game has a much greater chance of negatively impacting the game.
*(as in the obsoletence of 10 years of design. Tons of old cards will become useless, falling below the power level of other uneffected cards, and thus rendering dech archtypes unplayable)
Conclusion: These random changes will, in all likeliness, negatively impact the game.
Final Conclusion: These changes to the combat system should not have occurred.
This was the bulk of the comments made by veterans AND by the beginners that learned and played both rulesets.
I just had those 2 players come back in the store asking about draft tonight - if it was M10 rules or the old rules. I told them it would be the same setup - draft players will choose the ruleset to play with.
The consensus from both of them - they want to continue playing the older rules. They find it easier to understand.
In a draft, I can't imagine many situations in a draft where the rules of playing stuff before damage is assigned and playing after it's assigned matters.
Regeneration is about the only time. An unsummon effect is about all I can think of otherwise, and a sacrifice outlet.
Can you explain some of the cards involved? (if you remember?) so we can clearly see exactly what's different.
99% of the games I've played have never abused "combat damage on the stack". Scarland Thrinax and Mogg Fanatic are the two recent ones I know if that I might abuse.
But all of those have flavor reasons for why it doesn't make sense. How come my creature still hits yours after it gets eaten by a thrinax??
I can't recall the cards involved - I was busy acting as a judge (which was very often last night). I did notice more Giant Growth and Shock type spells being called in question throughout the night.
At the end of each match, I had players write about their experiences and openly suggest improvements to the rulesets. I'll carry around a notebook tonight to take more notes about problematic plays so I can share them with everyone.
As for your flavour comment, let me ask this:
Hasn't the creature's blood already been spilled in battle? So why can't that blood be collected and devoured by Scarland Thrinax during or after combat?
Or maybe a real life approach to this flavour:
If a leech is sucking in a creature's blood while swinging itself towards another creature, wouldn't that blood add momentum to the body of the leech?
"A solution to this problem would be to have creature deaths occur after combat damage, allowing a period of time to sacrifice the creature for effects outside of combat." This was suggest last night by a player who's been playing since Beta - might be worth the light of trial.
But all of those have flavor reasons for why it doesn't make sense. How come my creature still hits yours after it gets eaten by a thrinax??
One explanation is that they already did the damage and are dying to battle wounds. That way deathtouch is more flavorful since you can say that a creature with deathtouch is either poisonous or specially trained, so that it's attacks cause more harm than initially thought, and the opposing creature is killed because of this (after damage resolves).
I feel as if arguing from a flavor standpoint is a bad idea... you can make up flavor arguments for anything.
If there were a rule that said you could sacrifice a land to pull any creature out of combat, you could just be like "Oh, it's because by breaking the earth underneath where your creature is standing you drop it out of combat and it climbs back to the playing field." I know this sounds ridiculous, but that's kind of the point. You can make up some weird reasoning behind why anything happens in the game. Both sides seem fine from an imagination standpoint. I can understand the "dying breath" flavor as well as the "how can my guy get hurt by something that just got eaten?" flavor.
Apparently, though, in Wizards' research they discovered that more people were confused as a result of "how can my guy..." flavor than were okay with it as a result of "dying breath" flavor. The reason for this, I would imagine, is exactly what Wizards means when they say one is more "intuitive" than the other. I think that the "dying breath" flavor is the result of people understanding the rules from a mechanics standpoint, and reconciling this rule flavorfully for themselves. Even though I personally have never had an issue with the stack from a mechanics standpoint, I've always felt in the back of my mind that the way it works is a bit illogical (this never mattered though, I'm not one to really care about flavor, I just like the rules and their interactions). I'd imagine it is this way for new players, but since this mechanic is also not something they're familiar or comfortable with, it creates a dual problem. Not only are they confused because, in general, they're learning a whole new set of complicated rules for a game they're just starting to play, but they're also confused by how when their guy beats up their opponent's guy he is still able to do stuff with it (or something).
I feel as if arguing from a flavor standpoint is a bad idea... you can make up flavor arguments for anything.
If there were a rule that said you could sacrifice a land to pull any creature out of combat, you could just be like "Oh, it's because by breaking the earth underneath where your creature is standing you drop it out of combat and it climbs back to the playing field." I know this sounds ridiculous, but that's kind of the point. You can make up some weird reasoning behind why anything happens in the game. Both sides seem fine from an imagination standpoint. I can understand the "dying breath" flavor as well as the "how can my guy get hurt by something that just got eaten?" flavor.
Apparently, though, in Wizards' research they discovered that more people were confused as a result of "how can my guy..." flavor than were okay with it as a result of "dying breath" flavor. The reason for this, I would imagine, is exactly what Wizards means when they say one is more "intuitive" than the other. I think that the "dying breath" flavor is the result of people understanding the rules from a mechanics standpoint, and reconciling this rule flavorfully for themselves. Even though I personally have never had an issue with the stack from a mechanics standpoint, I've always felt in the back of my mind that the way it works is a bit illogical (this never mattered though, I'm not one to really care about flavor, I just like the rules and their interactions). I'd imagine it is this way for new players, but since this mechanic is also not something they're familiar or comfortable with, it creates a dual problem. Not only are they confused because, in general, they're learning a whole new set of complicated rules for a game they're just starting to play, but they're also confused by how when their guy beats up their opponent's guy he is still able to do stuff with it (or something).
Also, while people testing these things out on new players is interesting, WoTC did it on a much larger scale over a period of several months and throughout formats and differing skill levels/personalities of players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
Also, while people testing these things out on new players is interesting, WoTC did it on a much larger scale over a period of several months and throughout formats and differing skill levels/personalities of players.
Exactly. Also, anyone who is trying to teach brand-new, just-released rules is going to be worse at teaching those rules than the ones they've been using for the past ten years. This might contribute to older rules being understood more easily than new, but I'm not positive.
Something I noticed was this: If you want to test with the new rules, I would suggest testing Reborn/Reborn/Reborn drafts. Players have consistently mentioned that limited is where the changes are most likely to matter. I agree, thus limited is a good environment to choose.
The reason I believe AR/AR/AR would be a good format for this is because, if you look closely at the set, it appears as if many of the cards are built with the changes in mind.
Creatures with sacrifice abilities? 2. Both of which are quite good even without stack-sac (they are Qasali Pridemage and Dauntless Escort).
But in addition to these guys, who does Jund Sojourners remind you of? Add "0: Sacrifice this" and what do you have? Mogg Fanatic, is that you!?
The one issue I'd imagine with drafting AR/AR/AR might be mana (though I'm not positive) in which case I might advise letting players pick like a single tri-land or a tri-land and a Panorama to include in their decks.
NOTE: I have absolutely no idea how interesting AR/AR/AR draft is regardless of what rules you're playing with. It might be an awful format, and if it is I apologize. In terms of cards that work under the new rules I think it is quite interesting, though.
Okay, my whole thing about this is that it makes the rules more consistent.
Combat damage used the stack, but non-combat damage didn't. For example, if I had two Faerie Mechanists and a Thopter Foundry in play and my opponent played Volcanic Fallout I couldn't sac the Faeries to the Foundry to get two Thopter after the damage is delt. I could do it to offset the loss of life, but it would still sweep the board.
It never made sense to me that one type of damage was so special as to use the stack when another type didn't.
Multiple blocking I'm a bit more skeptical about, but its not that big of a part of the games I play so I couldn't really say.
I don't see sorcery speed sweepers on the way out, at least, not the ones I assume you're thinking will go (Infest, Pyroclasm). Granted, Jund Charm and Fallout have much more "naughty" factor, especially Jund Charm (hi Reveillark), but that doesn't mean the other two are still bad. They're direct counters to Spectral Procession by themselves until the second Anthem drops, and insures that Windbrisk Heights won't drop a surprise for you. I do agree with you that sorcery sweepers will see less play, but I wouldn't count them out yet, particularly Infest since it's all black gets for now unless they do something like reprint Mutilate or Damnation.
Having been in this game since Unlimited, I can't help but laugh at the deja vu I'm feeling reading this thread and its predecessor.
I remember hearing the same "Sky is falling" doom-and-gloom when the first template change in Exodus (adding collector numbers and rarity colors), with the Classic rules changes, with the new card template, etc. etc. etc.
And yet, we're all still here, and, more importantly, Magic is still here.
This has been mentioned a few times before but it bears repeating: The damage change is a step backward not a step forward: It is almost exactly damage worked pre-Classic (without the confusing damage-prevention window). Honestly, this is the way damage should have been from the very beginning rather than the Classic change of putting it on the stack.
And honestly, it's so insignificant a change that it shouldn't even warrant this much debate. So you can't kill a 1-toughness card with your STE and get a land. So what? A) How many card interactions does that actually affect and 2) do any of them really matter? We'll just find new card interactions, because that's what good players do.
The whole argument seems a bit childish, with much stamping of feet and holding of breath until faces turn blue. The only constant in anything, including our favorite games, is change. To survive you must learn to adapt. If you don't, you may just get left behind. And wishing to maintain the status quo won't stop the status quo from changing around you.
This is coming from someone who hasn't played the game in a couple years, but has a long memory, so take it for what you think it's worth. But, seriously, you want to talk about dumbing down the game, look at 7th edition.
I'm not saying... I'm just saying.
Played again last night, and EDH was identical to old rules. Even my Sharuum blink deck, but I also didn't draw Momentary Blink specifically.
Play certainly seemed to still favor skilled play. I didn't win a single game.
Well said. Odds are the personalities that resent "stupid noobs" are personalities that hinder MTG's growth. This is a game, not a rite of passage.
Bring on new players. I want to play this game 24/7.
The changes to combat phase are MASSIVE, the reductions of possibilities for skillful outplaying an opponent are HUGE. So many highly useful options and strategic possibilities are completely GONE.
This is nothing like the 6ED changes. I was there 9 years ago, I remember the outrage, but then it was greatly . 6th Edition and The Stack was a great step forward, into making the game mechanics easy, simple and LOGICAL.
The new M10 rules aren't logical AT ALL!
Just look at how damage prevention is to be played - right now it's simple and obvious - you play your prevention effects IN RESPONSE to a damage spell or IN RESPONSE to declared damage on the stack. But after the horrible joke that is M10 goes live it will be completely inconsistent and illogical - in combat you will need to play prevention BEFORE damage is even assigned! Thats plain ********! Why make combat work 180 degrees different than the rest of the game? Pure nonsense.
And LIMITING the possibilities for creative plays is UNFORGIVABLE. Nothing like that happened in the past. 6ED changes were even more drastic, but they DIDN'T CUT DOWN the possibilities and options!
Honestly I doubt these NEGATIVE changes will even help to bring new players in. Many other changes which are coming WILL help, but those were completely unnecessary.
I've been teaching plenty of new players to play the game well, and understanding of the combat damage step was NEVER hard for them to understand!
If they understood the basic concept of how The Stack works, like from the basic classic example of playing a Giant Growth in response to a Shock, it was enough when I told them:
"Declared combat damage now goes on the stack as 1 single package and can be responded to by both players."
and there was nothing more to be explained!
And the same with a case of a multi-block:
"Attacker can freely distribute his damage among the blockers"
Hard?
Even mentally tarded pokemon kids understood this instantly.
If I can describe a rule in just 1 sentence and it's instantly understood = it's not complicated!
And now, try to describe all the new stuff about declaring blockers in an order and the whole process of trample-like dealing damage through them to a new player in 1 sentence!
Good luck.
Yes, not only they made it unnecessarily MORE COMPLICATED, they also REDUCED the possibilities of plays resulting in a dumbed down game. Dumbed down game that's more complicated and illogical at the same time. Lolwut?
BAD+BAD=TERRIBAD
It's not just controversial. It's plain horrible. The new combat changes are easily The Single WORST change that has happened to the game in it's entire history.
Unmatched by anything else.
Because almost everything else was pretty much good, there were very few things which could be called bad at all... but this one is BAD on a massive scale.
So much trolling.
Also, many insults to people's intelligence and such.
Flame infraction.
The only thing I feel to respond to in your post.
Does Pat Chapin not understand the rules? Is he a blind fanboy or blind noob?
http://forums.starcitygames.com/viewtopic.php?p=1039662#1039662
No seriously, no trolling on this thread. We want LEGITIMATE discussion, not discussion saying 'you can't do so many things anymore' without saying why.
Twitter
The ordering of blockers by the attacking player is supposed to show his priority for dealing damage. The point of ordering blockers is to still give the defending player some chance to respond to the damage before it is dealt. Deathtouch should only modify how much damage a creature has to deal to a blocker (at least 1) before moving on to the next creature in order. It should not completely disregard the chosen order.
If deathtouch followed blocking order, I wouldn't mind the loss of damage assignment nearly as much. The loss of "stack damage, sacrifice/bounce, still deal damage" is not that big of a problem. The problem is the way that deathtouch disregards the new blocking order that is supposed to replace damage assignment on the stack.
... of course there is still the problems of weakening already weak damage prevention, neutering older cards like Stone-Tongue Basilisk, and eliminating post combat Pyroclasms/Inflames for extra damage.
i keep seeing this mentioned, but i don't recall seeing anything in the new rules that stop you from doing this, can someone point it out somewhere?
What they're talking about is a situation like this:
You attack with a 6/6, the defender blocks with three 4/4's.
You deal two damage to each of them and let combat resolve, your guy dies, the 4/4's have two damage each.
Second main you play pyroclasm and all his creatures die because it brings their damage count up to 4.
I have not had any games where a deathtouch creature was gang-blocked yet. That said, I think this is probably a very good point.
I am trying to think why they would not have taken that approach. My guess is that the method they chose was easier to fit into a keyword reminder text. Perhaps someone can come up with a concise reminder text to fit silvercut's concept.
Edit: The post above describes the Pyroclasm after combat scenario. I do think this is a legitimate loss in combat, despite it being a somewhat uncommon issue outside of limited. The question whether it is a good trade-off will of course vary from player to player, probably contingent on that player's favored formats and decks therein. Moreover, new combat is new enough, there may be other undiscovered implications to fill that particular void.
one more edit: I distinctly remember some lost strategies when 6th Edition came into the game. I don't recall at this time what they were... Mirror Universe was a minor one, and not comparable to the Pyroclasm Post-Combat. Perhaps others can recall some others.
Deathtouch got buffed for sure, I like the changes made with it and lifelink but haven't yet had a chance to playtest it. A lot of players in my Block group cried knowing that multiple Battlegraces aren't as ridiculous anymore (well, Maelstrom Pulse kinda cinched that anyway).
Why would anyone ever block that way?
I accept that these situations sometimes occur, but it is rare. You can't force the opponent to double block the way you want to anyway.
Twitter
The first reason stated for the change in the combat rules is that the use of the stack is complicated for new players. But the stack is part of the game, and the new player needs to learn it. Creature combat being one of the first things I teach folks new to Magic, that's normally the first chance to teach them about the stack. "When we get to this phase, each attacker assigns its damage among its blockers, and then the blockers assign their damage to the creature they're blocking. That damage goes on the stack and each player has a chance to play spells or abilities in response to it. You could use a card to protect your creature from damage here, or if you have a way to sacrifice a creature that's going to die when the damage hits them you can use it now to your advantage." How hard is that? They get to delve into the most complicated portion of the game, the stack, in the portion of the game that's easiest to understand, dudes hitting other dudes in combat.
This change creates two separate game action resolution mechanisms. The stack for spells and something entirely different for creature damage interactions. The stack was, until now, the unifying mechanism for resolving actions within the game. Yes it was sometimes difficult, but once the basics were learned you could pretty much work out any game state by using the stack. This change to combat means you now have two "books" of rules to use. Certainly their spheres are nicely delineated, but it creates a mental line within the minds of new players. "Ok, I learned combat and that was complicated. Now I have to learn this stack thing too?"
By using a single unifying system to resolve most game mechanics, you avoid the appearance of over codification. The unifying rule applies to all situations. Learn it and you understand the game. Now the system appears to be two systems. The stack and the combat system. The rules necessary to work the new combat system seems formidable to say the least.
As an example of the new problems created by the combat system change, in their breakdown of the rules Wizards states that there were two problems with Deathtouch: It triggered in a weird manner sometimes. - A legitimate complaint that could be fixed by making it non-stackable. And that it doesn't work with the new combat rules... WHAT? That wasn't a problem until it was made a problem! It worked just fine before aside from the stacking issues. The retooling of combat created an additional problem that had to be solved.
Friday night, my store had 4 booster drafts and our beginner's special - hands-on game training, free booster draft, free tournament pack and three boosters, and tournament mat for the price of the first booster draft. Overall, 13 returning players and 4 new players showed up for the night (I usually have another 2 booster drafts, but we only had 3 additional players show up).
Each draft group was given the option of running the new M10 ruleset as opposed to the previous ruleset. Three of the groups decided to give them a shot - the resident judge and I announced the new rules, along with displaying them over the projector. Before passing out product (and after giving a basic rundown with the new players), I covered changes in combat using examples in this thread and over the Wizard's forums to try to keep issues to a minimum (I thought at the time the new blocking order would cause problems). To say the least, alot of players (mostly casual veterans) were disappointed by the changes, especially combat blocking and damage.
The drafts were as follows: 10th Ed., Alara Block, 10th Ed., Time Spiral Block. The beginners were split fairly evenly, 2 in the 10th Ed. and Alara Block drafts, 2 in the 10th Ed. and Time Spiral drafts. The latter 2 last night ended up learning both the new and older rule sets, so I got beginner impressions of the old versus new. Might need to continue this tonight to what happens.
Anyways to keep this short, here are the basic reactions and comments I recorded during the night:
This comment was made by one of the beginners, not a veteran. The other beginners also made conceptual mistakes involving lifelink - not a welcomed change for beginners in my opinion.
There were other comments made by veterans, but they have been pretty much summed up in the thread so far (so I'll leave them out).
Finally about the 2 beginners that tasted both rulesets.
I mean, you've probably not seen a Deathtouch creature gangblocked very often because it's guaranteed card disadvantage under the old rules or the new almost all the time. I'm not really worried about weird scenarios where someone is playing 3 creatures all with regeneration and they happen to need to gang up on a creature with Deathtouch. The highest toughness of any creature with Deathtouch at the moment is 3. After that, you're looking at Deathtouch granting Auras and Equipment, or a Cairn Wanderer with a Deathtouch creature in the graveyard. Frankly, if someone has gone through that much effort to get Deathtouch on something big, I don't think it's really that big a deal if that creature is awesome at killing stuff in combat.
Truthfully, the vast vast vast majority of the time you're brawling with Deathtouch creatures it'll still be a 1 for 1 trade because they're typically not big. The triple Drudge Skeletons example only appears worrisome because the chosen Deathtoucher has 3 toughness and all of the chosen defenders are 1/1s. And even then, you're trading a Drudge Skeletons for a Winnower, which is usually going to be a good trade for you. In this scenario also thanks to the new rules, the Drudge Skeletons have to pay half as much to regenerate in order to survive combat. This also seems good, to me.
Deathtouch was an okay ability. Now it's marginally better and instead of being straightforward it is a bit tricky. I think that having a keyworded ability be slightly trickier is probably a good thing. And anyway, how often are spells / abilities used that would actually prevent a creature from dying to Deathtouch?
1. It makes the game more intuitive/easier for new players to learn.
I admit, there were tons of confusing situations in the old rules. But you know what? There are just as many confusing situations in the new rules too! The mere fact that there are tons of rules questions proves this (and in a specific case, I will point to the fact that the defending player assigns blockers, but does not choose blocking order, which is unintuitive). The stack is absolutely integral to the game, and if you are dumbing things down since newer players can't handle the stack, then you are just promoting ignorance. Those players STILL don't know how to play.
Conclusion: The game is not more intuitive or easier to learn.
FACT: I have never had to explain stacking combat damage to a new player that I taught a second time. EVER. I use the phrasing "and then the creature fight, so they assign damage however they want to the creatures blocking/blocked by them, and then the damage goes on the stack, so you get one last chance to save them before they go to the graveyard."
The reason so many new players are surprised by this "stack and sac" stuff is because some people aren't properly teaching them. Of course they are surprised and betrayed! Their knowledgable teacher thought they were too stupid to understand this simple concept and just completely left it out! How insulting!
2. It increases the place of skill in the game/opens up more tactical decisions
Do you know what skill is? It is knowledge of the game, combined with the ability to apply that knowledge. Blocking and then saccing with damage on the stack is a skillful move. The only reason its so obvious now is because we've been doing it for years. By changing the rules, you are not making the game more of a skill tester. You are merely changing the best action.
Yes, there are new choices, but the fact remains that there is only one best option to choose*.
A skilled player will still only have one "obvious" choice. The only reason it seems like you have more choices is because WotC destroyed all your training, so you are not yet skilled enough to make the proper choice.
* (using known game state information only, and not counting the effects of luck on the game, which will always apply)
Conclusion: The game is not more of a skill tester, nor does the game open up more tactical decisions.
3. It nerfs some abilities.
If this is REALLY the reason, I wish WotC would just come out and say it. Honestly, I wasn't even aware that they were causing so much trouble. Isn't every tournament riddled with, you know, non-saccing creatures? Lets take a look
Bloodbraid Elf, Mistbind Clique
Hmmm... it seems the tournaments are just completely saturated with efficient beaters and creatures badass comes into play abilities (which are often also efficient beaters).
I didn't know Putrid Leech was such a big problem, considering its not even played it every BG deck.
Even going back to older formats, the cards nerfed aren't format wreckers! You can only make a case with Archbound Ravager, but he was only a problem since every other card in Affinity is both an artifact and free, not because his ability sacs other creatures on the stack for more damage!
Conclusion: The cards nerfed did not need to be nerfed.
4. Change for the sake of change.
This is possible the worst reason of all! This is a hobby, and all the current players learned with the current rules, so obviously there was something there that they liked. Unless you can think of a solid reasoning for changing the rules, you'll only risk changing something people liked, thus injuring the game.
Since there are no apparent positive consequences and there are apparent negative consequences*, making random changes to the game for the sake of the game has a much greater chance of negatively impacting the game.
*(as in the obsoletence of 10 years of design. Tons of old cards will become useless, falling below the power level of other uneffected cards, and thus rendering dech archtypes unplayable)
Conclusion: These random changes will, in all likeliness, negatively impact the game.
Final Conclusion: These changes to the combat system should not have occurred.
Edit- Got another reason? Please list it an address me. I'd love to counter it.
To urzassedatives
Dude, what is your problem?! I've already given a million and one examples of when that happens. Rarity of one specific case is not an argument when there are THOUSANDS of other similar cases. The changes add up.
They would block that way if it was a 6/9.
What if it was a 2/2 blocked by two 1/3's? Surely that's much more common.
Just pick an attacker X/X, and blockers Y1/Z1, Y2/Z2... YN/ZN, with a sweeper of damage M.
Such that Sum N:1 -> N (YN) = X and Sum N:1 -> N (ZN) > X-N and There exists two such Z, caled ZJ and ZK, such that X + 2M > ZJ + ZK.
Then a sweeper post combat against properly distributed damage will always take out more creature than in the old system. THERE! Thats an infinite number of cases. Maybe each case is rare, but in total, they are not rare, specifically in limited.
Another Edit-
I remembered another argument
5. Saccing after stacking damage is unflavorful.
But people have already voiced their thoughts on "lethal damage healing/dying breath actions" and so have I. In addition, the new blocker lineup doens't make any flavorful sense either. If I order my knight to fight these 3 guys, and kill Guy 1 first, but Guy 1 gets hit by a Giant Growth, such that the knight can no longer kill it, why would he just ignore the other two guys he is clearly fighting, even though he could kill them?
Conclusion: The new system is not more flavorful.
In a draft, I can't imagine many situations in a draft where the rules of playing stuff before damage is assigned and playing after it's assigned matters.
Regeneration is about the only time. An unsummon effect is about all I can think of otherwise, and a sacrifice outlet.
Can you explain some of the cards involved? (if you remember?) so we can clearly see exactly what's different.
99% of the games I've played have never abused "combat damage on the stack". Scarland Thrinax and Mogg Fanatic are the two recent ones I know if that I might abuse.
But all of those have flavor reasons for why it doesn't make sense. How come my creature still hits yours after it gets eaten by a thrinax??
So have you tested with the new rules? Doesn't seem like it, since you continue to give hypotheticals, with creatures with hypothetical p/ts and weird gamestates.
Also, like I said, as time goes on, more and more are speaking out in favor of them, as Pat Chapin did the other day.
Sorcery speed sweepers are likely on the out.
Ever think about that? Last I checked, we have some really good instant speed ones in standard. This fixes your problem perfectly. After blockers and block order is figured out, you cast the sweeper, then assign damage.
Fin.
Like I said, these rules will be supplemented by the types of cards being printed from here on out.
You can continually wear the negative pants, that is fine, but understand that this change is not 100% terrible, and won't be 100% detriment to everything ever.
There are cases where some cards work differently, yes, but if WoTC prints cards that aren't less than optimal in the new system (ala pyroclasm) they can even things out.
Also, in respect to damage prevention, maybe that will be retooled as well?
Neo-healing salve W
Instant
You may prevent up to 3 damage dealt to a creature you control this turn. (Templating may be off)
Since prevention shields are now going to be almost exclusively that, why not make actual ones?
These changes are NOT about 'working better in X situation anyway'. New types of cards and effects will be made and the rules will prove their mettle themselves, just as with 6th edition rules, which WERE NOT popular at all when they were first announced.
If the pros can find new and interesting strategy in the new system, maybe people against this change aren't looking at it with open eyes. There are opportunities for new strategies, as old doors are closed. More choices and tension in combat, no more 'cake and eat it too' decisions by stacking damage.
After the release of M10, the great majority of players will be done complaining about the new rules, and will have settled in just fine. If there was such a massive outcry, the (pointless) petition wouldn't be at such a dismally low number anyway.
Chapin heavily disagrees with you.
And I think he knows a little more about skill and magic theory. He has a book coming out.
Twitter
"Just as many"? That's really the debatable point.
There is a large conceptual hurdle to get over about how "damage on the stack" works. A lot of players run into this and hate it, especially if they originally learn the game informally, then get pwned by someone who uses one of these tricks on them without explaining it effectively.
The new rules certainly can produce confusing situations as well, but they seem to be much more in terms of explaining a bunch of different relatively rare corner cases rather than a single big hurdle you have to crawl over early on in the learning process. That's quite arguably an improvement.
(Let's not go down the potentially insulting path of insisting that people who have trouble with any given rule are "idiots" or whatever, please. Every player who learns Magic is different and gets stuck at different places in the rules; I can assure you that damage-stacking is one place that many, though certainly nothing like all, new players become confused.)
In a vacuum, any circumstance in which you make the "correct" play is a skillful move, yes, but that's not what people are talking about.
When people say they want Magic to be a game of skill, they mean that they want it to be a game in which small differences in skill make a relatively large difference in who wins; where, more often, the better player beats the worse.
Block-->sac is a skillful move, but it's a single, easily acquired skill; any moderately decent player will know it, and always make the right call. In this situation, under the old rules, any player with a 1700 rating will play exactly as well as Gabriel Nassif.
In a situation in which the combat decisions are more nuanced and challenging, this creates more opportunities for greater skill to prevail. Under the current system, the correct play in many combat situations is less obvious, and more dependent on board position, relative weighting of different resources, and knowledge of one's own deck. This provides more opportunities for the very skilled -- like the people who win Pro Tours -- to outplay the moderately skilled, which makes Magic a more skill-intensive game.
I don't think this is really the reason, simply because (as you point out) the "nerfed" effects really aren't format-ruining.
Why is someone blocking a 2/2 with two 1/3s? If you have an otherwise clear board, the attacker is bluffing that he has a trick, and you probably don't risk calling him on it, because if he does you're probably looking at a 2-for-1 (if you don't have a trick of your own), with a 2-for-2 or 1-for-1 probably the best trade you can guarantee on your end. In a vacuum, you take the 2 in this circumstance.
Where it gets more interesting is when you don't have a vacuum -- say, the attacker is making an alpha strike with four different creatures and you're arranging a complex blocking situation to try to eke out better card advantage than your opponent. But these circumstances also don't really lose complexity from the new rules. Take this isolated part of the example: under the old rules, if the attacker's packing a Pyroclasm, they're almost guaranteed to wipe out any blocking creature one way or another, no matter how the opponent chooses to allocate his blockers. In the new rules, the blocker can actually consider protection against Pyroclasm-type effects as one benefit of gang-blocking, a choice that didn't exist before.
A lot of this stuff is really hypothetical now because it hasn't been played out on the Pro level. Once we see a major event with these rules in place, I guarantee we'll be able to point to a few games where interesting strategic calls were made that were only made possible by these new rules.
This was the bulk of the comments made by veterans AND by the beginners that learned and played both rulesets.
I just had those 2 players come back in the store asking about draft tonight - if it was M10 rules or the old rules. I told them it would be the same setup - draft players will choose the ruleset to play with.
The consensus from both of them - they want to continue playing the older rules. They find it easier to understand.
I can't recall the cards involved - I was busy acting as a judge (which was very often last night). I did notice more Giant Growth and Shock type spells being called in question throughout the night.
At the end of each match, I had players write about their experiences and openly suggest improvements to the rulesets. I'll carry around a notebook tonight to take more notes about problematic plays so I can share them with everyone.
As for your flavour comment, let me ask this:
Hasn't the creature's blood already been spilled in battle? So why can't that blood be collected and devoured by Scarland Thrinax during or after combat?
Or maybe a real life approach to this flavour:
If a leech is sucking in a creature's blood while swinging itself towards another creature, wouldn't that blood add momentum to the body of the leech?
"A solution to this problem would be to have creature deaths occur after combat damage, allowing a period of time to sacrifice the creature for effects outside of combat." This was suggest last night by a player who's been playing since Beta - might be worth the light of trial.
If there were a rule that said you could sacrifice a land to pull any creature out of combat, you could just be like "Oh, it's because by breaking the earth underneath where your creature is standing you drop it out of combat and it climbs back to the playing field." I know this sounds ridiculous, but that's kind of the point. You can make up some weird reasoning behind why anything happens in the game. Both sides seem fine from an imagination standpoint. I can understand the "dying breath" flavor as well as the "how can my guy get hurt by something that just got eaten?" flavor.
Apparently, though, in Wizards' research they discovered that more people were confused as a result of "how can my guy..." flavor than were okay with it as a result of "dying breath" flavor. The reason for this, I would imagine, is exactly what Wizards means when they say one is more "intuitive" than the other. I think that the "dying breath" flavor is the result of people understanding the rules from a mechanics standpoint, and reconciling this rule flavorfully for themselves. Even though I personally have never had an issue with the stack from a mechanics standpoint, I've always felt in the back of my mind that the way it works is a bit illogical (this never mattered though, I'm not one to really care about flavor, I just like the rules and their interactions). I'd imagine it is this way for new players, but since this mechanic is also not something they're familiar or comfortable with, it creates a dual problem. Not only are they confused because, in general, they're learning a whole new set of complicated rules for a game they're just starting to play, but they're also confused by how when their guy beats up their opponent's guy he is still able to do stuff with it (or something).
Also, while people testing these things out on new players is interesting, WoTC did it on a much larger scale over a period of several months and throughout formats and differing skill levels/personalities of players.
Twitter
Exactly. Also, anyone who is trying to teach brand-new, just-released rules is going to be worse at teaching those rules than the ones they've been using for the past ten years. This might contribute to older rules being understood more easily than new, but I'm not positive.
Something I noticed was this: If you want to test with the new rules, I would suggest testing Reborn/Reborn/Reborn drafts. Players have consistently mentioned that limited is where the changes are most likely to matter. I agree, thus limited is a good environment to choose.
The reason I believe AR/AR/AR would be a good format for this is because, if you look closely at the set, it appears as if many of the cards are built with the changes in mind.
Creatures with sacrifice abilities? 2. Both of which are quite good even without stack-sac (they are Qasali Pridemage and Dauntless Escort).
But in addition to these guys, who does Jund Sojourners remind you of? Add "0: Sacrifice this" and what do you have? Mogg Fanatic, is that you!?
Damage prevention spells? 0.
Pump spells? Depending on your definition, about 3 (Zealous Persecution, Colossal Might and Violent Outburst) and these are almost always better used in a pre-damage on the stack situation.
The one issue I'd imagine with drafting AR/AR/AR might be mana (though I'm not positive) in which case I might advise letting players pick like a single tri-land or a tri-land and a Panorama to include in their decks.
NOTE: I have absolutely no idea how interesting AR/AR/AR draft is regardless of what rules you're playing with. It might be an awful format, and if it is I apologize. In terms of cards that work under the new rules I think it is quite interesting, though.
Combat damage used the stack, but non-combat damage didn't. For example, if I had two Faerie Mechanists and a Thopter Foundry in play and my opponent played Volcanic Fallout I couldn't sac the Faeries to the Foundry to get two Thopter after the damage is delt. I could do it to offset the loss of life, but it would still sweep the board.
It never made sense to me that one type of damage was so special as to use the stack when another type didn't.
Multiple blocking I'm a bit more skeptical about, but its not that big of a part of the games I play so I couldn't really say.
Standard:
UBR Grixis Control
WUB Time Sieve
WUB Esper Artifacts
Past Ruminations
Links are broken, will fix in near future.
- Kaladesh
- Zendikar
- Rise of the Eldrazi
- Alara Reborn
- Innistrad <- Personal Favorite
- Dark Ascension
- Avacyn Restored
- Theros
- Return to Ravnica
- Tarkir